As a company for years we have worked using old ASP (vbscript), we have just started updating to c# .net. our first MVC3 project is ready to be uploaded to the web server for testing and to iron out any bugs.
After reading about it I have made myself fairly familiar with the theory of it.
System.Web.Mvc
System.Web.Routing
System.Web.Abstractions
Have all been set to copy local 'true'
Right clicked the solution and selected 'Publish'
Created a new profile
Filled in the connection details, although I am unsure exactly what is meant by the 'Site Path' and 'Destination URL'
As it stands the site path is the scripting path and the destination URL is the URL as it would be typed into an address bar in a browser.
connection does validate.
in setting I have selected release
The there is a little tick box which seems scary to me, it says "Delete all existing files prior to publish" The server I am uploading to contains all our live and test websites, although I have created a new folder for the project, I under no circumstances want it to touch, edit, modify or delete anything else on the server. So this box is unchecked. Can anyone verify that leaving this unchecked will ensure it does nothing to anything else on the server?
Then in preview it simply says "Your application will be published to: (IP address of server)
Can anyone who has done this before give me some guidance this is the correct method to go? I could do it will less worries through a normal ftp but would like to be able to utilise Visual Studios tools. Its Visual Studio 2012.
Sorry if this isn't the exact correct place for this question.
After trying to do this for a while I discovered that publishing to ftp was a waste of time and the hard way to go about things. Although probably alot of you know this.
Instead I just published to a system file and then uploaded it with cuteftp to the web server. This maybe isn't the most professional way to go about things but from someone that comes from a primarily web scripting background, I found this alot less confusing and alot easier to manage.
I just thought I would answer my own question to resolve this thread.
Related
First of all, I am not a C# developer. Only briefly glanced at it once or twice. I mainly have worked with VBA for Office and SQL Server for coding.
In my role now, I'm asked to make a correction to an Intranet site/page/tool. The change (I think) is just a simple text change, which I already made and saved all the files containing the text. It was literally changing one string to another.
I made the file changes to all the files where the IIS says the app/site is located - where the files are located.
The changes do not show (it seems) in the actual tool/site.
Is there some way I can test it to verify the chagnes aren't actually showing?
Secondly, is there some way I can safely force the site/app to reflect my changes/edits?
I found this former discussion, but was not sure whether any of those suggestions would be relevant to my scenario:
Visual Studio. Code changes don't do anything
Thanks in advance for any hints or tips.
Today i made a quick template for a landingpage and wanted to test it on my webhotel. I have never actually published a website on a webhotel before, but the initial process in asp.net was pretty flawless.
The way i got my webpage onto the server, was by publishing my project and transferring it to my server on a FTP connection.
However, when i open my up my webpage, it only shows the html code, which is really weird. .
http://bkrt.dk/Index.aspx
What may i have done wrong, and How do i solve this issue?
Turns out that my webhotel doesnt support .aspx, but only php!
- Solution is that i either change webhotel, or do a full convertion to html, which seems to be no option. I will therefore look for a webhotel with asp.net support.
Is it possible to duplicate a live Umbraco site which we have full access to (Backoffice, passwords etc.) and copy its content into another account? The idea is that we want a clone of the live site to practice on without danger of changing something and accidentally ruining the currently working and published live site.
To simplify, we have:
A working live Umbraco site with admin privileges so we can access all files.
A new, separate Umbraco account which is essentially a blank canvas with access to all files.
We would like to duplicate all the files and content from the live site to the new account just to have something that closely resembles the live site to practice building widgets etc.
We are working in Visual Studio 2012 with C# and Razor and want to use the latest version of Umbraco CMS (currently 7.3.0-beta Prerelease according to NuGet Package Manager).
Have I got the right idea with this approach or is there a better way? I am aware of Umbraco Courier but would like to know if there are any options other than a paid-for add-on.
If this is the best approach, what is the procedure, and if not, what are the options and why are they preferable?
This can be achieved quite easily by copying the files to a new environment, restoring a backup of the database to a new environment and then updating the connection string in the web.config. This will give you a working copy of the live site. If you are looking for a continuously synchronised solution then that is a different matter, Courier has never worked for me reliably.
I have been some time using asp.net charts, even it was hard to config for asp 3.5 and to make it work, I have been able to move along with all my project but I'm facing something that I have no idea how to solve.
This project works perfectly on my develop enviroment, but when i deployed it on the server, the only page with charts on it appeared like this:
I assume its cause of the charts because its the only thing that really have given me problems and its the only thing that its exclusively on this page but i have no idea how this happens, it only happens on the server with Plesk.
Tried to upload on debug instead of release but the result is the same. Searched overall but never found anything like this.
My Answer may not give you the exact solution. But it may give you an idea's.
Below are my Ideas:
Make Sure you have included all the files into your solution when you do the Build.
Make Sure you have all dependency of Asp.Net Charts in Server.
Check you browser Console and Browser Network. Press F12 in your and check. You can get to know the Exact problem if any issue in loading prob / dependency files.
Double check your server configurations for the charts. And compare your local and server configs.
Do the Deployment in your machine itself and check one round.
In our college they have competition--students have to develop and show some code. It has a cash prize. I have done an entry as a website (C#) using asp.net. The problem is that my website is in the computer laboratory of the college, so anybody can open Visual Studio and copy my project or edit it.
I want to protect my project. Is there any way to put password for the project alone in Visual Studio? To make it attractive I have hosted the website in the IIS of the server, so by using the IP adresss I can run the project anywhere with intranet access.
When I put a lock like EasyFileLocker, I am unable to open and run the project using the IP address.
I want to run my project anywhere in the intranet, but also protect its code.
How can I do that?
Presuming your source code is somewhere safe (if not, then put it somewhere safe over which you have control), then the deployed end result need not expose the source code in its raw format; you can pre-compile ASP.NET websites entirely (such that even the markup can't be edited on the server - at least not very easily) - do this by selecting the pre-compilation options on the deploy screen, being sure to uncheck "allow this website to be updatable".
the exact method of specifying the right build options differs between VS versions, but the options are the same ultimately: Precompile, (Don't) Allow precompiled site to be updatable.
The result is the code of your website ending up in binaries, including the page markup (the files still exist, but simply as placeholders with their substance missing.) For someone to get at your code, they'd need to reflect your binaries.